Three experts presented by the Relevant Parties each delivering their expertise in the judicial review hearing of the Road Traffic and Land Transportation Law (LLAJ) on Wednesday (6/6) at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK Ganie.
Every part of Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ Law) containing elements of prosecution is based on the intention to protect the public from the negative impacts arising from accidents. This was conveyed by Danang Parikesit in his statement as an expert presented by the Police in the follow-up hearing of the judicial review of the provision of GPS usage in the LLAJ Law on Wednesday (6/6) afternoon.
"The prevention aspect is an important element of the government\'s success as the recipient of the law\'s mandate to reduce the number of accidents and accident fatalities," said Chairman of the Indonesia Transport Society in response to petition No. 23/PUU-XVI/2018.
In his statement, Danang said that the telephone use ban during driving has been adopted by laws and regulations in more than 30 countries. Even in Portugal, he added, the use of hands-free on mobile phones is also prohibited while driving a vehicle. That means that phone activation through sound is also considered a distraction that can increase risk factors of collision and/or accident.
In addition, Danang said that lawmakers have put the use of mobile phones as the dominant risk factor in the cause of visual and audio motor distractions during driving. The lawmakers\' decision, he added, was appropriate because it is in line with global researches on the impacts of cell phone use and the laws and regulations used as law enforcement tools in various countries around the world. "The use of the phone and all its features while driving causes distraction that is longer than reaction time, as we said earlier, and may result in a harmful event," he explained.
Cognitive Factors
Meanwhile, Guritnaningsih, also presented by the Police as a Relevant Party, explained that concentration is a must for motorists because driving is a complex activity involving sensomotor, personality, cognitive, and demographic factors. Among these factors, the cognitive factor is often less recognized as an important factor in determining motorists’ driving behavior. Furthermore, Guritnaningsih explained that there are two cognitive loads in driving vehicles, especially those mentioned in Article 105 and 106 paragraph (1) of the a quo law, that is, concentration and GPS use while driving, which are a combination of simultaneous activities.
"For example, when there is criticism of underage individuals riding a motorcycle, the general response is answers such as that the motorist’s legs already capable of supporting the motor or using the brake and accelerator. This response shows that in the opinion of some members of society what matters in driving is the sensomotor factor. This view is certainly inaccurate," Guritnaningsih explained before the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the presence of the eight other constitutional justices.
As is known, Guritnaningsih added, highway situation is change fast, and requires a quick response to avoid accident. Meanwhile, concentration is the ability to focus the attention of the motorist on the task of driving and not distracted by disturbance that comes from the motorist as well as from outside. Attention and concentration are important because the traffic situation that drivers encounter when driving is dynamic, complex, and changing at any time.
The next thing to keep in mind by motorists in using a cell phone is that he or she performs two or more tasks simultaneously. That is, when a motorist drives a motor vehicle, then uses a mobile phone actively, there is divided attention. The limited cognitive capacities in humans will be increasingly burdened when at one time one should concentrate on two tasks simultaneously.
"Thus, when the motorist deliberately uses the phone for the purpose of pressing a button or find a location via GPS, their attention will be fixed on the phone screen. This situation causes divided attention, that the driver becomes less responsive to the stimulation coming from their surroundings and they display response slowly," Guritnaningsih said.
Criminal Provisions
Marcus Priyo Gunarto, a Criminal Law Professor of UGM, in his expert statement as another Relevant Party, elaborated that not all actions that endanger the community must be resolved through the criminal law. A dangerous action shall be established as a criminal offense if the legislators see that any other way than the criminal law is deemed ineffective and will not deter the perpetrators. The function of the criminal law is often referred to as the subsidiary function, that is, it will be used if other means are deemed not yielding results to achieve the desired objectives. However, if the legislators consider that the action poses a great danger, they will deal with the action with the criminal law.
In that case, Marcus added, if one does not drive a motor vehicle on the road carefully and meeting traffic requirements, it will pose danger both for the driver as well as the legal interests of others who are in the street space and who are on the roadside. "Given the high number of incidents and victims and based on the dangerous nature of the action and the legal interests that must be protected, the legislators have a strong reason to criminalize drivers who do not drive the vehicle reasonably and with full concentration," Marcus explained. In the petition, the Petitioners feel that their constitutional rights are harmed by the enactment of Article 106 paragraph (1) and Article 283 of the LLAJ Law. They consider the provisions conditionally contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1). The Petitioners reasoned that the phrase "using telephone" in the Elucidation to Article 106 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law was one of the reasons causing disturbance do driving concentration of motorists should have a clear purpose. Thus, there would be no multiple interpretations in its enforcement. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Friday, June 08, 2018 | 16:00 WIB 184